Comments
-
@Kangaroo Jacked, I'm all for guns, but the only thing I'm against is making open carry a social norm. First of all, it's not tactical at all. If you really need your gun in public, you are most likely using it on someone else with a gun. They'll shoot you first since they knew you had one. Plus, seeing everyone with a gun openly WILL make some people uncomfortable (not me, but some people). Concealed carry is way better. I also think that some restrictions on mag size and automatic weapons is too far. 99% of civilians getting automatic weapons are just fun enthusiasts who know what they're doing.
-
@acsdog, @necillen, people who go through the long, arduous process of obtaining an automatic weapon are NOT going to use it on other people. Hasn't happened since the early 90s and those were AKs. Also, do you think people are going to go into a place and start shooting people if they know there is a chance that those people have weapons? Fvck no! Additionally, open carry might make some people uncomfortable, but fvck them if it makes me feel safer.
-
@nevillelin, no, having a government doesn't lead to a loss of liberty. The people who are scared and can't do things for themselves, and expect the government to take care of them is what leads to losses of liberty. And to your question, my answer is no, because we need security, I understand that, because there are always low lifes out there. But you don't give up your rights because of the 1% of bad thing in this country, and then expect the government to take care of you. That's a slippery slope my friend.
-
@Bench, having a government requires losing some liberties. Otherwise, you would be able to drive as fast as you would like, or start drinking at the age of 12. These loss of liberties come with the government, and liberty vs security is an inverse relationship. No one is going to be perfectly agreed on what the perfect point on that inverse scale would be, which is why we're having a discussion right now :)
-
@nevillelin, yeah, but now you're comparing liberties that are not of equal merit. A 12 year old drinking vs the 1% of shoot ups is not very comparable. And you're right, there will never be an agreeable definition of what should be done, but there's a line that the government shouldn't be able to cross, and once you let them do, you won't be able to push them back over. What if I said this, a kid walking into school with a knife and stabbed 10 kids before being stopped, should the government ban all knives and sharp objects?
-
@Bench, My response would be that a kid with a knife is far less dangerous and easier to stop than a kid with a firearm. Also, I never said that the government should ban all firearms, a more appropriate depiction of my opinion would be to ban knives from children and those with mental illnesses, and only allow those who demonstrate that they are of sound mind to purchase them. If you read my read my response to Fist's second comment, you would see that I support heavier regulation rather than banning of firearms. Thank you for responding with logical arguments and not by getting upset and name calling, by the way.
-
@funny pic veteran, veteran, I understand what you're saying, but I felt the need to clarify what meant by anarchy, as there are multiple definitions. I meant "1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" and not "c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government"
-
@funny pic veteran, veteran, I understand that there are two different meanings of anarchy, but the utopia you speak of is the far less common use of the word. Both are legitimate definitions, and it is not a misconception or misunderstanding of anarchy that people use, but simply the first definition rather than the second
-
@nevillelin, people who are enthusiasts can get proper permitting. I worked for a security company and the owner dealt firearms (legally) as a hobby. He has acquired the necessary permits to own sell and fabricate fully automatic weapons. It's not tough if you are devoted to it. I agree with you, and I am a strong advocate for the second amendment.
-
@funny pic veteran, exactly. What happens when big government gets the ball rolling and micromanages everything? When we have no power and no control over our own regulations? That what hitler did. He starts by taking firearms from citizens. Eventually it got to the point where you could be shot on site for not turning in your firearms. Law abiding Jews would be on their way to the police station to turn in their firearms and would be shot in the street before they could. Eventually hitler had absolute power and a nation was unable to defend themselves.
-
@ToolOGT92, when you obtain a concealed carry license you take a class (in most states) and you are taught the legalities of intercepting a shooter. First rule is not to engage or intervene if they are not immediately harming or in the process of doing so. You're right, you should never intercept a robbery because most criminals are after petty cash. When they intent to hurt someone it becomes a different story.
-
@AverageWhiteBoy, in Delaware you have to take the class, get five references, put your name and intent in the paper and a bunch of other stupid fees. In the Delaware/Maryland area people are buying guns like crazy because of our fascist government and I think the state likes the fact that they can deny permits to people for any reason. The courses that are certified by the state are overpriced.
-
@ToolOGT92, just another way for Uncle Sam to make a pretty penny on freedom. I love my country, I'm prior service in the army and I would die for America, freedom and my family, but I'll be damned if I live to see big government overrun our constitutional rights. It's a sad day when we see the vast majority of law abiding Americans punished for the crimes of the few criminals and mentally ill. That's why I'm considering joining a local militia.
-
here's my take on guns. If you have a mental illness or a criminal record you should not be able to buy a gun. If you buy any gun, whether it be new or used it should be registered (like a car), some people made a big deal out of it, but just like a car, some people should be allowed to operate a gun. Bullets should also be registered to make them easier to trace (I don't know if thats already a thing). And open carry is just a problem waiting to happen, it scares people and it might eventually scare the wrong person (someone who doesn't know about it, or someone who doesn't know theres a really), and people will get injured or die. And finally guns can kill people, theres been plenty of cases of guns self firing (whether they fall, or something just goes wrong), guns were meant to protect sane law abiding citizens from potential danger, and only sane law abiding citizens should have the privilege to own a gun. Just my two cents
-
@D0N RAM0N, most for what you said was obvious and not needed. As far as open carry - I'd rather have tons of people in a store with me with guns on their hips then have them hidden. This way I know for sure who to avoid, and perhaps it makes the mentally ill person about to do a shooting think twice and leave that store.
-
@D0N RAM0N, self fire? Have you ever shot a firearm? Even a defective weapon WILL NOT injure a single person if the operator handles it properly. Last summer I was on the range with my brother. We are both prior service. He was chambering a reloaded round with a defective primer. His 40 went off as the round loaded and fired right into the ground just feet from me. I was loading my 12 gauge rift next to him. He practiced safe handling techniques an as a result we were both safe. Even the most dangerous and defective firearm is totally inept if it is handled like, well like any gun, with safety. Never point it at something you don't want to shoot, trigger discipline. There is your safety.
-
I think the right to bear arms is important, but every argument I've heard against more gun laws is acting as if they're taking away every gun ever. I think it's important that people can't get devices created only to harm people while in an impaired mental state, either mad, or crazy or intoxicated.
-
@AlaskanBu11Worm, and you'd be a helluva lot safer if you carried a gun. Defense needs to be proactive, you can't just sit on your ass and hope nothing bad ever happens. Taking guns away IS taking freedom away, and it only make everyone less safe, and makes it easier for criminals (including politicians) to have there way with you.
-
@AlaskanBu11Worm, you obviously don't know anything about having to buy a gun. It's not legal for a KID to own a gun. Just to take a gun out of your house, it has to be registered so that the govt knows you have it. Regardless, there are so many guns made already, the black market would still make it possible for people to find a gun and take it to a school. Please explain to me why it's a bad idea to have more people in that school that are able to defend kids like you?
-
@AlaskanBu11Worm, its also estimated that guns are used 50000 times per month to defend a life without firing a shot. Considering that the amount of school shootings, firearm deaths and accidental firearm deaths have gone down since the 1990s I would say that more guns are a good thing. Your case of emotions without facts are illogical and can easily be dismantled in seconds.
-
@Just a raccoon, I agree with you in some parts you said, Canada is very free! Just because we don't carry guns everywhere doesn't mean we aren't a free country, yet I'm on the edge of deciding whether guns are "safe" or not. Sure, they supply as good protection for reasonable people, yet they also make it way easier for a person to snap and go on a killing spree. You aren't against freedom, I'll agree to that. You have valid points and non valid points. Now, watch me get down-voted to oblivion because I stated my opinions and some people are too ignorant to even comprehend the fact that other intelligent beings can think differently than themselves. Good day!
-
@Texacan, I do see your points, but these people have different opinions. This is what makes the world spin. If we all thought the same life would be awful. All I'm saying is these people think about this topic differently than us, while I can see where you'd get angry there is no need for the insults and blatant ways of telling raccoon he sucks, like I agree with you in most parts, yet I don't see why we have to get so worked up over it, if he had a different favourite colour would you criticize him for it too? I do realize I'm going to be down-voted because again, people will have different opinions than me :P
-
@masterchiefan, wow thanks I didn't know I was a great commentator. anyway, I did not call names to anyone. meanwhile, look at that texas dude keeping calling me names. I did nothing wrong, Im just sharing my opinion, I am not calling names to no one. Its the other people that are calling me names (they still think I give a sh!t)
-
@Texacan, besides the fact that most car related deaths aren't premeditated and every school shooting is, it is just as hard to get a gun licence as it is to get a drivers licence. And drunk driving and texting while driving are the biggest vehicular killers, and they're both illegal. Also, I never said guns should be banned, I said that, yes, guns do kill people.
-
@Texacan, But guns were created for the sole purpose of killing efficiently and effectively. Short of explosives (which have been used but not nearly as much) almost everything else is less effective as the guns that psychos use. Do I think that we should be more focused on the people who commit these heinous acts? Yes. But you can't say that someone could recreate Columbine with a knife.
-
@Aperture Employee, considering everyone at columbine was defenseless and afraid, it wouldn't have changed much. The thing is, people will commit crime no matter how much law you have in place. The only way you can prevent major crime is to have zero freedom, or for people to defend themselves. If criminals can use guns to commit crime, why shouldn't I be able to stop them with MY guns? I choose not to be a victim.
-
@Texacan, Fine sense you seem to attack anyone with different views I will explain to you what the big bad government is trying to do with gun control they don't want to take your guns away from you they are trying to limit the damage they can do by requiring more strict background checks and psychic exams and limiting clip sizes but sense gun lobbyist hate anything that could limit there guns they prevent anything from passing I am not saying you can't own a gun but everyone walking around with AR-15s simply because they need to defend themselves is a little ridiculous in my opinion. I don't know why you get so defensive over this topic.
-
@Udder Despair, thank you for posting an actual argument. First off I would like to point out that we do have lots of gun control laws already in place, but they arn't being effectively enforced. Before adding more laws, don't you think that we ought to make sure the ones we already have are being implemented? I mean, you can't say something isn't working of you've never used it. Secondly limiting clip size does absolutely nothing. Did you know that the recent shooter in California had 40 ten round mags? What good did the CA ten round limit do there? None. I'll agree that walking around with an ar-15 for defense isn't the brightest idea, but it is a right guaranteed to us by the second amendment.
-
@Udder Despair, and why am I defensive? Because I fvcking love guns! I've even built my own ar-15. Everyone in my family owns and is proficient with guns, and we would never kill anyone for any reason other than self defense. It annoys me when people suggest that inanimate objects are somehow evil, because it is an argument completely and totally devoid of logic and reason.
-
@Udder Despair, I've never been to Florida, so I can't say I know what it's like over there, but your statement sounds a little over exaggerated. Most law abiding gun owners arn't just itching for the chance to shoot someone just because they carry. They carry so that if someone intends to cause them harm the can stop them before it is done. They don't want to have to shoot anybody, but the are prepared just in case. It's asymmetrical risk, I'm not likely to be attacked, but if I am it could be very detrimental to me, so I carry a gun so I can prevent the attack in the unlikely event that it should happen.
-
@Udder Despair, because those are not nearly as effective at stopping a threat. Tasers generally only have one shot, if you miss in the heat of the moment, you're dead. Furthermore if the attacker is on drugs they may not even realize they've been tased, as has happened to some police officers. A gun is the most sure fire way to defend yourself in this modern age.
-
@Texacan, I'm with ya on this one man, the only problem with guns, are the people who don't know how the fvck to properly use them. The even bigger problem is these kids who go shoot up schools, normally have no prior record and are good students, just don't have friends or a social life and they blow up. It's hard to catch that before something bad happens
-
@Aperture Employee, Yea and without guns America would not exist guns have a great effect when offense but an even more powerful effect when used defensively. Take this scenario, China invades the US on our home front and keeps pushing our soldiers back the next line of defense is the American people not to cower in fear behind our military but to rise up and push back that is the basis of the second ammendment that is why it was put into our Constitution so we can fight all threats both foreign and domestic. You take away the peoples rights to guns and you take away for our countrys defense.
-
@Fox News , wow, just wow. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Guns arn't made to kill, they are made to launch a projectile, hence the staple gun or the water gun. Cars are extremely effective at killing, hence the vehicular death toll vastly dwarfing the number of people killed with firearms. The second amendment specifically says, "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." And money being evil is communistic drivel. Shut up before you make yourself look even more idiotic.
-
@Texacan, no I'm pretty sure they are made to kill things that was the intention of whomever invented firearms and if you read the whole 2nd amendment you would see the placement of that line is after the state right to keep a well regulated militia giving that right to anyone who was in a militia and I said all this without calling names and acting like a child all I did was state facts
-
@Aperture Employee, but it is! Haven't you heard of the bundy ranch? When the government literally tried to take all that the bundy family owned? And how they were driven back by the militia, something that couldn't happen in a subjugated society? I agree that gun owners should be responsible, but I also realize that you can't mandate that. It's just not possible or constitutional.
-
@Fox News , you did it. Now you look even more idiotic than before. Way to go champ. The sole purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile, nothing more. That or somehow the majority of people who use guns, you know the ones who go to the range, are somehow using them wrong. Do you know who the militia is? It's every citizen capable of fighting. You didn't state facts, all you did was state ignorance.
-
@Udder Despair, well considering I'm signing into the Marines this summer I beg to differ I'm not afraid to fight or die for my country and what it stands for and that's why people are against the government taking away full autos you contradict yourself. And congrats you know how a gun works but it's a took and how you use it depends on how you use it defending yourself or loved ones isn't a immoral thing shooting up a school is.
-
@Udder Despair, you do realize that the military uses semi auto guns too, right? And that an m16 and an ar15 are pretty much the same, right? And no, unlike you, if we are invaded, I can defend myself. Sure the military's help would be nice, but I won't be dependent on them. Furthermore, brave people do exist outside of the military you know.
-
@Fox News , no not at all. I own guns. Am I threatening people? Millions of Americans own guns, are they threatening people? Think about it. If what you said was true it would already be happening. It isn't, so you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The reason the isis is threatening people is because they are Muslim zealots, NOT because they have guns! If they didn't have guns, they would be using swords! Inanimate objects are not evil! Evil people are evil. Plain and simple. We carry guns so that when evil people show their true colors they can be put down before they cause too much trouble. And still no, guns were never intended to kill, just launch projectiles. Those projectiles are intended to kill sometimes, but projectiles have been used since man discovered stone, so launching projectiles is hardly new. What makes a gun more evil than a bow? Or a sling? Nothing, because a gun cannot be evil.
-
@Udder Despair, dude they are the exact same thing. They both shoot the same .223 round. How on earth is the m16 "more powerful?" M4 is the carbine variant of the m16, and it equates to a short barreled ar15, again, same thing. You don't need an army you just need a population that cannot be easily controlled, that's why the Swiss weren't invaded in WW2. You need to do more research.
-
@Rick Grimes, 1. Intent is of zero consequence in anything. All that matters is what happens, and it just so happens that more people die to cars than anything else. 2. An armed citizenry CAN resist the Chinese military, something you can't do, brainless as you are. 3. Ever heard of going to the range? Skeet shooting? Three gun? Competition shooting? Get this guns can be used to SHOOT TARGETS! Like most gun owners do, it's really quite fun, but you wouldn't know that, mentally neutered as you are.
-
@Texacan, dude I am a gun owner. Granted its small arms, but arms nonetheless. You honestly think citizens with even AR-15s can stop Chinese war machines. You must have some brain deficiency caused by too much Fox News you worthless twit. And how can even an idiot like yourself think that the first person to make a gun thought "boy I hope no one ever uses this" guns have one function. And that is to end life you bloody fool
-
@Fox News , 1. The minuscule amount of extra gunpowder equates to nothing more than a few extra fps of muzzle velocity, it does not have a significant effect. Quit talking about something you know nothing about. 2. You attacked me, genius, or did you already forget? Nothing you've stated has had a lick of logic behind it, and don't give me that bs about a friendly debate. You are not being friendly, and you are hardly debating. 3. That tragedy could have been prevented had even one teacher been armed, my rights have nothing to do with it. Psychos will still exist with or without guns, preventing law abiding citizens from having them won't change anything. Get over your pompous-ass self.
-
@Texacan, I never attacked you I just stated truths and no a teacher probably couldn't have prevented that and again with the stupid name calling it only makes you look worse commenting back at you isn't an attack also I don't feel ALL guns should be banned there should just be more laws like for vehicles we make laws to prevent death I believe that concealed carry sidearms should be all with limited mag size I mean its just for self defense
-
@Fox News , no, you haven't stated a single truth. Having someone to shoot the guy would have stopped him, teacher or otherwise. What good did the limited mag size do in California? The guy brought 40 of those perfectly legal 10 rounders. Ever heard of reloading? It's not that hard. Limiting mag size is 100% pointless. And NO guns should be banned because inanimate objects are not the problem. More laws won't do anything because not even the current laws are being enforced.
-
@Fox News , so? That still doesn't change the fact that limited mag size doesn't change anything. It only makes it annoying for law abiding shooters at the range. Ever heard of the starfish clip? A clip that allows you to hook 5 ten round mags together for speedy reloading? And it's completely California legal.
-
@Fox News , you need to read the amendment and do research. You are completely ignorant about the whole subject and to thick headed to listen to reason. Militias are made of civilians. It's not a special group you have to sign up to be a part of. Some states have groups if people that call themselves that states militia, but that doesn't mean you are not part of the militia if you are not part of that group. All it means is that you don't train with them or go to their meetings. It's not as cut and dry as you so ignorantly think. Saying your same reasonless arguments about guns over and over again does not lend them any credence. All it does is make you look insane.
-
@Texacan, AMENDMENT II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Notice the capitol s meaning state state not country state and it said nothin about individual ownership.That is a statement about the first half about all the people as a whole in a militia have the right to bear arms and in the times before the constitution the states all had regulated militias and the second amendment was added to ensure the federal army at the time could not unarm the militias
-
@Texacan, and AGAIN why do you have to try to insult me with names that just shows how childish you really are you act like anyone with a different view is stupid when there is a valid reason why a lot of people around the world have the same belief are you saying that everyone who isn't on your side is wrong?
-
@Fox News , no it isn't. Each state has a national guard yes, but it IS NOT the militia. Again, the militia is an army of the people, of citizens. The militia is any citizen of fighting age (some definitions exclude women, but I don't) able to fight. It is NOT the national guard. Quit being an ignorant idiot.
-
@Texacan, you called me and many other people names I think you need to open your eyes and understand our side I get yours you're worried about your rights but there is a point when society actually does something about issues like this and we must agree something has to be done and not just arming everyone
-
@Fox News , no we don't have to agree. That's the whole point of freedom and the reason we need to be able to defend ourselves. You say "I get your side" when you obviously don't. What you mean to say is "everybody that disagrees with me is wrong." This is extremely evident in your wordage. You claim moral superiority when you have none. You claim to be the inclusive one when in reality you are the biggot who thinks that everyone besides you needs to change. You are perhaps the most intellectually deprived person on this app besides raccoon.
-
@Fox News , you have zero evidence to back up that claim. It is also inconsequential. Lots of murders are premeditated, but not all premeditated murder is done with firearms. You statement is therefore meaningless as the removal of guns changes nothing, and you argument is once again rendered invalid. This whole thing is originating with the logical error on your part that "because guns were created for killing, they must be banned." It is an ignorant idea with no basis in reality, and yet you continue to argue for it. Just for fun, let's say I agreed with you, what would you suggest as a solution to your perceived problem, and how would you go about enforcing it?
-
@Fox News , is it a problem that they are designed for that? In the correct context firearms are appropriate and necessary for taking action. I have said this before and I'll say it again. Criminals will ALWAYS have firearms, law abiding citizens will not if Uncle Sam outlaws them. It's plain and simple, society is too far along, at least in American culture, to take firearms away from the people. In an ideal world, yes, I believe they shouldn't be necessary (I would still own them because I enjoy my range time). The fact is we need them. It is completely absurd to rely entirely on the government for protection. We are supposed to be for the people by the people, not for the leaders and by the politicians.
-
@AverageWhiteBoy, The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
-
@Just a raccoon, sorry! Took a very long time to get to the bottom of the thread but I wanted to say I'm on your side. I think if we made it harder for people to acquire guns, gun violence would reduce. Make sure they're in the hands of responsible people. None of this "they'll get them no matter what" crap, if it's hard to get, they might think twice about it and not be impulsive. Sorry to keep extending the conversation I just think that people are giving you sh!t for your opinion when it is a completely valid one.
-
@Texacan, there's nothing ignorant about having an opinion. And I'm not suggesting banning guns, I'm suggesting making sure they're in the hands of responsible people, via background checks and limits on ammo, etc. We can help protect against them ending up in the wrong hands, whereas making it easy for everyone to get guns pretty much ensures that they will end up in the hands of someone who is dangerous. We should make it harder for dangerous people to procure weapons that could cause extreme damage. So if all you're not going to give me any reasoning behind your opinion, good day
-
@Peter Capaldi, of the two things you proposed, neither would have stopped any of the tragedies that have happened in recent years. Furthermore laws like those are already in place, they arn't being enforced, so tell me, how would more laws help? Also limiting ammo only hurts law abiding citizens like me who like to go shooting at the range on the weekends, not criminals, who only need 20 rounds to kill 20 people. This is what makes your opinion ignorant.
-
@Texacan, so, what, the answer is more guns? I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. In the US, we have 88 guns for every 100 people. The argument that more guns around would discourage these attacks is crap. The Fort Hood shooting involved a man who killed 13 people on a military base, surrounded by guns and people who were trained to use them. But of your point, it's half true. The laws are being enforced, but because of loopholes in them, are sometimes ineffective. Which is why we need stronger gun laws on the books, because restricting the access to firearms discourages these kinda of attacks. And about "criminals are criminals because they break the law": most of these recent shooters are not criminals, at least not until they kill these people. If we make it more difficult for them to procure weapons it could discourage their occurrence. My point is, the US blows away every other country in the world with the amount of guns we have, and yet we also have a much higher rate of (cont)
-
@Peter Capaldi, your entire argument is based on opinion not fact. Fact is, guns deter crime, look at Switzerland and Israel where nearly all citizens are armed. The laws are not being enforced, read the news. Making it more difficult to procure firearms only hurts law abiding citizenry. People breaking the law don't care about the law, so how will more law help? You arn't making sense. We have more murders by guns because we have more people. What you are saying is the same as there are more car crashes in the us than in Texas. Where is the logic?
-
@Peter Capaldi, that is an analogy based on a logical fallacy. Guns are not the cause of crime, and supersized meals are not the cause of obesity. If you take away guns, crimes will still happen, if you take away supersized meals (which actually happened btw) people will still be obese. Again, your argument is logically flawed and therefore wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, NOT your own facts.
-
@Texacan, just saying that guns make killing EASIER, make crime EASIER. just like super sized meals make obesity easier, and you can get lung cancer without smoking, but cigarettes definitely don't help. No, guns don't cause crime, but if we make access to them easier, they'll almost certainly end up in the wrong hands. And having more people around with guns to stop one person intent on killing isn't the way to go, it'll only lead to shootouts and/or civilian casualties
-
@Peter Capaldi, It also makes it harder for them to end up in the right hands. It also doesn't stop them from ending up in the wrong hands. The majority of gun users do not commit crime. Just as the majority of car users do not commit crime. Are you saying we should ban all guns just because someone is likely to be killed with one? Then why not ban cars? Hell, why not ban vending machines for causing 3 deaths on average per year? Crime will be committed guns or no. Preventing law abiding citizens from having guns only makes criminals more bold, or did you not hear about the Norway shooting? Where the perp killed around 70 defenseless individuals, because none if them were armed? Even with the strictest gun laws in the world, criminals will still be able to get guns because they don't follow the law. The "guns make it easier" argument is flawed too. So do cars, planes, knives, hammers, rope, any tool really. All you can do about crime is protect yourself, or be willing to accept the -
-
@Just a raccoon, Hey man, I just wanted to say that I completely support you and admire you for being the bigger man and not coming down to their level of indecency. I am actually appalled at how these people have been treating you, and just yesterday I thought Funny Pics had one of the best communities out there. Guess I was wrong.
-
@Texacan, *Sigh* You show every sign of an internet troll: Picking fights, insulting others, lying, etc. Although I doubt you care, I really don't want to get into an argument, especially not with someone like you who resorts to name calling and other disrespectful behavior. So if you would oblige, let's just end this before it starts, ok?
-
@Texacan, I know I shouldn't respond to you, but I'm going to anyway. If you would have actually read my comment, I said that I was appalled (I never said you or anyone else was appalling) and that your behavior was indecent (again, I never said that your or anyone else was indecent.) Now hopefully we don't have to take this conversation any further, as I would like it to end before it devolves into what I saw previously.
-
@BlueBastion, ending it is entirely up to you as you were the one who started it. You said you were appalled, what were you appalled at if not me or the other commenters? The indecent behavior is completely reasonable given the indecency of the arguments instigator, the sniveling raccoon, whom you call the victim.
-
America is beyond saving at this point. If gun were banned there, there are already so many guns that it would only make things worse since people would be able to defend themselves. Gun laws only work in Europe (most of it anyway) because there just aren't any guns to begin with. It will take decades to get America to the level of Everyone else.
-
im not american but im glad guns are illegal in my country. guns make it easier to kill, if you say "no im responsible" then what happens when you find your wife cheating on you when you have a gun? your child being raped, while you have a weapon on you? this is why usa has a high criminality rating. guns make it easier to scare and kill people
-
@Just a raccoon, actually in Switzerland, everyone has some sort of carbine weapon (for get which m-something it is), and everyone is trained to use it and at any given point and time someone could just go on a rampage with but no one ever does. The police there contribute it to any would be mass murderers realize they wouldn't get anywhere before they are gunned down themselves. Not meaning to start a war but food for thought.
-
@Just a raccoon, here in Arizona we have a town called tombstone where every citizen carries a gun and there hasn't been a crime in +50 years if civilians carried guns with proper training crime rate would drop self defense and personal protection is what our second amendment is for if you see a child getting get in AZ you can legally walk up and shoot them in the head (what should happen) same with armed robbery, GTA, 2nd degree arson, and and murder guns in the wrong hands hurt people yes just like they always have but if there's more responsible people with guns it's not such a problem. Sorry for the long post but people need to realize why guns are needed
-
@Just a raccoon, okay my dude..If I find my child being raped. Whoever is there better hope I have a gun because it is going to be much less painful for that Individual. We blame guns but look at the people who kill. All the mass murders are people who have a lack of social skills a and are force fed anti depressants rather than actually finding a solution to their issues. And people in impoverished parts of the country who have little to no options and are brought up in a gang culture that our country does little to nothing as a whole to help. We blame guns. But America has far more severe underlying issues.
-
@Just a raccoon, um I don't know if you have been to any American high schools. It is not hard to find drugs. You just kind of yell "drugs" and there is someone willing to sell. And what happens when they make guns illegal? All the law abiding people turn them in? Right? Okay..so once the people who follow the law have no guns. And I'm sure all the people who have illegal guns will stop using them because it "isn't fair" stronger regulation I agree. But you can't take away the guns in america..we are past that point. Crime really would go through the roof. And the South would start a civil war because you are not taking their guns. The best way to stop bullying is to teach everyone how to fight. At this point I think the same ideology would prove effective at this point.
-
@Just a raccoon, if anybody were to rape my kid, and I didn't have a gun, I'd take a knife, castrate him, stop the bleeding with an iron and just hook up a tube to a nice artery and let him slowly bleed out while I use a stapler in sensitive areas... Like eyelids, nipples, back of arm..... Does this work better? I mean torment instead of quick and easy? Cause fvck calling the police so he can get 3 free meals a day and housing for a few years (if you're lucky) until they say "you've served your time" sorry but I'm not sorry about this post, when it comes to my kids I kinda loose it on this matter
-
@Just a raccoon, dude... Guns aren't the problem... There are more deaths from hammers in the us than guns. The problem is that there is no real help for those who need it. If there were no guns, then they'd use knives. If there were no knifes then they'd use their fists. Guns aren't the problem, people and circumstance are the problem.
-
@Just a raccoon, Switzerland trains people to use guns and issues them out. They have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. In the UK they have a lot of stabbings like we have with guns. If we didn't have guns the crime rate would sky rocket because criminals dont care about the law and will shoot people anyways. The only thing that stops a monster with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I live in Florida where there are stand your ground laws. I honestly feel safer knowing anyone around me could have a gun and know how to use it.
-
@AlaskanBu11Worm, OK? If you read what I put that stuff does happen I can talk about the shooting in Colorado and Ohio that stuff happens Yea but it happens less when people are prepared and know how to act in those situations and one of them lived. The west coast (AZ) has a third the crime rates than the east coast where gun control is everywhere the greatest defense this nation has its citizens with guns ready to defend
-
@Just a raccoon, sorry if this has already been said, but here is my opinion. In the US, drugs are illegal. People still get drugs every day. If guns were illegal in the US, people would still get guns. The people who wouldn't get guns would be good honest people. The people who would get guns are bad people who are buying illegal guns for murder. So the only thing that making guns illegal would do is to make sure that good people who just want to protect themselves won't have guns. If guns are legal, people can protect themselves and crime rate will go down because people are less likely to fight of they suspect there will be resistance and also people will be able to get guns legally so no crimes there either. My point is that legalizing guns only makes honest people vulnerable to attacks because they won't be able to defend themselves from bad people with illegal guns. This is just my opinion. Thank you. *grabs popcorn*
-
@Texacan, I sincerely think he doesn't understand the difference between opinion and ignorance and judging by his vocabulary and responses I'd say just a raccoon is 13 or 14 years old tops. You guys gave all the arguments to convince any logical person but clearly this isn't the situation so I think you should stop replying to him before he cries. I'm all for personal opinions but this is ridiculous.
-
@Just a raccoon, I didn't say you're acting like a kid, kid. You're responses are what gave you away, you're so called reasoning is that of a person with a child's mental capacity. 90 percent of people's replies have put you're reasoning to shame and you haven't came up with a single logical argument besides guns kill people faster. No fvcking shlt Sherlock and cars take you places faster than walking. You think because they kill people faster the world would be better off without them is an ignorant statement, there will always be disturbed people on this planet who will always find a way to complete their desires so I'd rather own a gun and have a safe state of mind than be a defenseless human at the hands of a disturbed person with a gun. Get you're head out of your ass you ignorant little shlt
-
@Just a raccoon, this proves you're a child. You have no defense for you're argument so you focus on me insulting you. The majority of my last reply was defending my argument and you focus on the insults. That is why texacan and I are insulting you because you're so goddamn ignorant and can't produce a logical argument for your so called opinion. I have gotten into arguments where the other person took something relatively close to your stance but they knew how to back up their argument so the conversation was more civilized but with ignorant people there is no civilized argument because they can't be reasoned with and won't let logic into their thick ass skulls just like yourself.
-
@Brave Sir Robin, fear? The criminal is the one with fear. The fear of being shot by the person he is about to rob or the owner of the house he is breaking into, if the government gets rid of guns they take the fear away from the criminals and they can do what ever the hell they want. Yea get rid of guns so criminals can't get them? Cause criminals follow the law right? Maybe in a peaceful world without violence the idea might hold up but in reality guns are very much a part of making sure you get the freedom and protection you want
-
@funny pic veteran, that's an idiotic argument. In that case why have any laws if criminals disobey them anyway? And if everyone in the world had guns then there would just be more chance of people killing innocent people on accident or suspicion like Trayvon. This is why I don't think there should be more people with guns. Because I don't trust people to not make mistakes.
-
@Brave Sir Robin, "why have any laws if criminals disobey them anyway?" Do you hear yourself? A criminal IS a criminal BECAUSE they break the law. "I don't trust people to not make mistakes" yet you trust your government to prevent criminals getting guns? Are you dense?! Wait, dumb question, you demonstrated that quite thoroughly.
-
@Just a raccoon, so you heard a rumor about Texas (probably from all of the web surfing you do) and as a foreigner assume something that you have no proof or forts had experience of? I have visited Texas several times, my brother was stationed there for 6 years. Texans are some of the nicest people an they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Pardon my French but I am jut so sick and tired of your sh!t.
-
@Just a raccoon, If someone was trying to rape my child, I would not hesitate to kill them. And not everyone can just carry around a gun, you need a special license for it. I can personally say I'm a responsible person, and I only use a gun for hunting, and thankfully I've never had to use it as a weapon. But if it came to the point where someone's life was in danger, I would use it.
-
@David The Gnome, people's disregard for their health makes people fat. Fast food can't make you fat. If a McDouble was sitting on the table and you were staring right at it you wouldn't gain 3 pounds. People need to take responsibility for their actions. That is the problem with society in general. Blame the McDouble not the fat ass eating his 5th one of the day.
If people here were responsible and actually held accountable for their actions without the blame being put on everything else, there wouldn't be a problem